www.testfreaks.com

Reviews, reviews, reviews...

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM
8.1 out of 10

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

To meet the growing demand of digital SLR owners, this ultra-wid Read more

Best Price at Amazon

Reviews and Problems with Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

Showing 1-10 of 14
Overall 6
6.0

Three Stars

qun y qi, Amazon
19 February 2015
Overall 6
6.0

Slow focus

Katie Ferguson, Amazon
16 April 2014
  • Summary: I had much better expectations for a lens over $1000. It has a very slow focus. It's not a lens to photograph children for sure. However it is great for weddings because your subjects stay still much longer :)
  • Read full review
Overall 5
5.0

User Review

JackyFong, Fredmiranda
21 January 2008
  • Conclusion: My second L turned out to be a nightmare. Having lost my battery power on my laptop when I was testing the lens, I preview thru my 30D LCD and found it reasonably sharp. And I bought it, but turned out worst on the iMac monitor.
  • Pros: Fast aperture, Fast focusing, Good weight
  • Cons: All pictures at all f-stop soft, with or without tripod or flash all SOFT... Since I bought second hand and I use it on cropped bodies; Canon Singapore recommend me to send to their service to re-calibrate this lens. I hope after re-calibration, the lens will be sharp as I do not want a whilte el...
  • Read full review
Overall 6
6.0

Looks like this lens just became a dinosaur!

K. Ewing, Amazon
25 February 2007
  • Summary: On Feb 22, 2007, Canon announced a "II" version of this lens that will correct the optical performance problems this lens has. The new lens has been completely redesigned, and will require MASSIVE 82mm filters. Yikes!
  • Read full review
Overall 6
6.0

User Review

CinderPath, Fredmiranda
28 November 2006
  • Conclusion: This is a nice lens, with a a nice range however it has a tendency have extreme flare and ghosting when it is pointing anywhere near the sun. I used this lens without filters, and with the hood. Sunset photos are practically impossible with this lens.
  • Pros: Fast, quite sharp, nice range 16-35mm on a full frame.
  • Cons: Extreme Flare
  • Read full review
Overall 5
5.0

User Review

Henning, Fredmiranda
21 March 2006
  • Conclusion: I bought this lens when it came out for film, and now use it mostly on FF bodies, but have also used it on 1.6x bodies. This lens is better than the 17-35 that came before, but again shows that Canon can't/won't buckle down and produce a truly good wideangle.
  • Pros: Well built, fast, nice range.
  • Cons: Mediocre optical quality. Doesn't get acceptably sharp until f/11 in the corners; low contrast even at smaller apertures.
  • Read full review
Overall 6
6.0

User Review

hubsand, Fredmiranda
7 November 2005
  • Conclusion: Oh, it's really well put together: beautifully weatherproofed, and reassuringly L-series chunky in the hand; it's such a shame that such an expensive lens so spectacularly fails to justify its exorbitant cost.
  • Pros: Really well made . . .
  • Cons: . . . for such an expensive failure
  • Read full review
Overall 5
5.0

User Review

cmitwac, Fredmiranda
4 August 2005
  • Conclusion: I bought this lens to replace the EF-S 17-85IS f/4-5.6 on my 20D. My expectation was better focusing (yes), sharper images (sometimes) and better low light performance (no way). I think the weight, limited zoom range, and range of image quality (from poor at 2.8 or soft at 35 to decent in other...
  • Pros: Well built Fast, silent focus
  • Cons: Very poor pictures at f/2.8 but better from 4 on Softness at 35 Strange lens hood Way too expensive Heavy Limited zoom range
  • Read full review
Overall 6
6.0

User Review

mrbister, Fredmiranda
7 December 2004
  • Conclusion: I'd expected greater optical performance from a "L-lens". I've shot a few hundred pictures with a 20D, and almost nothing with it impress me. Going to have a chat with Canon regarding a lens calibration - and hope that's the issue with it.
  • Pros: Fast AF, good WA even on 1.6x dSLR, dynamic colors.
  • Cons: Poor optical performance, really soft, almost all pictures taken at f/2.8 need USM, compared to a the 100USD kit lens (18-55) and the diff. is barely noticeable. Expected ALOT more from a L-lens costing 13 times more than a 'simple' EF-S kit lens *imo*...
  • Read full review
Overall 6
6.0

User Review

Jaymanpics, Fredmiranda
8 June 2004
  • Conclusion: Bought this lens to replace a Sigma 15-30 even though I lost 1mm at the wide end this is more than compensated by it being an f2.8. I do not know why anyone has problems with this lens as I find it to give me excellent results all of the time and honestly would feel as if I were missing a limb if I...
  • Pros: Ultra wide angle at f2.8,balances wellon all my equipment
  • Cons: None
  • Read full review
Next page >>